The problem is our legal system is full of perverse rewards - for example, the DA's office and police force probably gets compensated depending on how much "crime" they "control". Thus, putting away people unjustly is rewarded, and they've externalized the negative consequences. They also get to see a parade of people who actually committed the crimes they're accused of, so making the generalization that "everyone who is accused is guilty" is fairly easy.
Plus, the problem with trying to go after all those people is that, in cases like this, many are probably not in the same line of work, have retired or died. Imagine if you took a job where, 30 years after you quit, someone could come after you because of something that might not have been your fault. That's not fair either.
I don't see a good solution to this, other than maybe additional separation of powers - for example, forcing the police and legal system to work further apart and not be rewarded perversely.
Imagine if you took a job where, 30 years after you quit, someone could come after you because of something that might not have been your fault.
If you railroaded an innocent man, tainted evidence, or otherwise brought about a false conviction with massive incompetence, I don't see any problem with people coming after you 30 years later.
Incompetence isn't criminal. I think the core problem is the incentives, like someone said. It's even in the design of the system, the DA is supposed to try to convict the suspect.
What about the jury that convicted him? I know that's not criminal, but they're supposed to be the last stand of justice. I find it incredible that they would unanimously discount what his family said and find him guilty. It's a pretty sad evidence of the prejudices of members of society.
The information to jurors is often controlled. You're not told of the outcome of prior failed trials, evidence is suppressed (by either side). Machinations of all kinds can make it tough for a jury to know what the truth was.
A jury doesn't have access to the truth. The jurors generally cannot ask questions; instead, they "watch courtroom TV" and are pandered to and fed material carefully crafted by both sides in an attempt to influence the jury's decision.
I wouldn't crucify a jury unless there was solid evidence that they deliberately convicted someone they knew was innocent.
I think the one watching court room tv is you rather than the jury. Just try and place yourself in the shoes of one of those 12 people who had to decide whether to let the man go free or go in prison for actual life, and make such decision not based on any incentive or interest whatever but your sense of consciousness and justice and see how lightly you will rely on some tv courtroom drama.
I wouldn't blame the jury on this one. They were treated to heart breaking testimony from a small child who was violently raped at gunpoint which culminated in her pointing at the defendant and saying "That is the man who raped me, he is sitting right there." What jury wouldn't convict on such evidence.
What the jury isn't told is that the defendant was rousted up when the word went out to bring in whatever black men they could find in the neighborhood. What the jury isn't told is that the initial report was of a man with face stubble and not the full beard he had when arrested.
Now the jury was told that there were multiple alibis, all of whom were black family members. They can be blamed for that. But really, seeing the little girl point to the man and say she is certain he is the one who raped her she remembers his face quite clearly, are you really going to say you would vote to acquit? Or would you assume the family members are lying to protect their own.
"I wouldn't blame the jury on this one. They were treated to heart breaking testimony from a small child who was violently raped at gunpoint which culminated in her pointing at the defendant and saying "That is the man who raped me, he is sitting right there." What jury wouldn't convict on such evidence."
Evidence? You wouldn't blame the jury on this one?
Testimony from the victim is considered evidence in most court systems. I wouldn't expect a jury of average people, especially back then, to be aware of the cognitive biases that made the testimony so unreliable.
I think the core problem is the incentives, like someone said.
Agreed.
It's even in the design of the system, the DA is supposed to try to convict the suspect.
In and of itself that's not a perverse incentive. The system is adversarial: the DA is supposed to try to convict, and the defense is supposed to try to acquit. Plus the defense has a huge advantage, because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution; the defense only has to establish reasonable doubt about the suspect's guilt.
You could argue with it, but it's not an obviously terrible design. The problems are with the implementation, chiefly: (a) the prosecution almost always has vastly better resources than the defense; and (b) judges and juries totally ignore the burden-of-proof rule.
Determining who in the hundreds of people who may have touched upon the case, is at fault and was intentionally distorting evidence is difficult.
The majority of people, given the knowledge they had at the time, were likely just doing their job.
We, the public, would have to pay for the enormous investigation, which likely would be inconclusive (it's not obvious DNA evidence like exonerated him).
You could, for example, tie certain people to this standard (say the district attorney) but that would cause other consequences - every case that wasn't a complete slam-dunk guilty might get ignored, even if there was sufficient evidence.
"The majority of people, given the knowledge they had at the time, were likely just doing their job."
Please do not take this as an example of Godwin's Law but I think Nuremberg trials made it clear that 'just doing their job' is not an applicable defense. Of course the magnitude of the acts is way different but the precedent exists.
Plus, the problem with trying to go after all those people is that, in cases like this, many are probably not in the same line of work, have retired or died. Imagine if you took a job where, 30 years after you quit, someone could come after you because of something that might not have been your fault. That's not fair either.
I don't see a good solution to this, other than maybe additional separation of powers - for example, forcing the police and legal system to work further apart and not be rewarded perversely.